memory_betafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:The Children of Kings
Why has the novel been identified as taking place in 2251? Colt's presence aboard seems to indicate a later date, and I haven't yet found any reference that requires the novel take place earlier than 2254. --Columbia clipper 02:41, September 30, 2010 (UTC) :Just to clarify. Have you actually read the novel? --The Doctor 07:57, September 30, 2010 (UTC) ::I've partially read it. (It will be a few days or weeks before I have the opportunity to finish.) I also searched it (via Google Books) for dates and terms that might suggest a later date. --Columbia clipper 21:28, September 30, 2010 (UTC) :::OK, well I'll explain my case for the placement and hopefully we can come to an agreement. Now the problem with this novel is that it plays fast and lose with canon, almost making it a Myriad Universes novel, with the non-com Pitcairn suddenly becoming chief engineer and other changes. My reasoning for the placement is based on several things. Firstly it is indicated that they are three months into a five-year mission (which could either be 2251 or 2257 according to the Star Trek Chronology). Now we could plum for the 2257 date, but it is also noted that the crew is still unfamiliar with each other, which considering the main crew essentially remained the same throughout Pike's tenure could indicate the earlier date. My memories still a little vague, but I made a couple of notes on this page. --The Doctor 23:10, September 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::I've just finished "The Children of Kings." I think that there are only a handful of elements that are irreconcilable to canonical Star Trek (among them, mentions of the Ferengi Commerce Authority and the Ferengi kronos/kronner). Some elements also conflict with popular perceptions of Pike's Enterprise, but are in line with both licensed and canonical material. And some elements require creative interpretation to fit with either. On the whole, I think the novel is best placed at the beginning of the Enterprise s second five year mission under Pike (2257). ::::Surprisingly, no source seems to have established Pitcairn's rank. Canonically, he was 'transporter chief' in "The Cage" and "The Menagerie". We know from Lieutenant Kyle's tenure as transporter chief that officers sometimes hold the position, and we know from "Flesh of My Flesh" that Dermott Cusack believed that Pitcairn 'could've made chief engineer, but opted for transporters', which at least establishes that he is likely qualified for the position, officer or not. ::::That Pitcairn was canonically not the Enterprise s chief engineer in 2254 suggests that he wasn't the ship's chief engineer before that date. The reference in "Flesh of My Flesh", however, opens the possibility that he might have pursued or accepted the position at a later date, perhaps after Michael Burnstein's tenure, which is recorded only in 2254 and 2256. ::::Garrison's rank is problematic, but could work if the novel is set later. Between 2254, his last appearance as a chief, and 2257, three years pass. We know from the recent movie that it's possible for a civilian to join Starfleet and rise to lieutenant in that time (at least in the alternate timeline), so it should also be possible for an experienced enlisted person (particularly if Garrison is only a lieutenant junior grade, which is possible in the context of the novel). ::::Colt's presence aboard represents a different problem. In "The Menagerie", Pike describes the casualties at Rigel thus: 'My only yeoman and two others dead, seven injured'. In "The Cage", number One informs him that 'She's replacing your former yeoman, sir'. This establishes, canonically, that Colt was not one of his yeoman as of 2254. It is possible that she served as Pike's yeoman previously, but their interactions - such as Pike's repeated admonitions, Number One's introduction, and Pike's complaint that he 'can't get used to having a woman on the bridge' (which is nonsensical within the episode, unless he means a woman to whom he's attracted) - strongly imply otherwise; other licensed material supports the notion that Colt first met Pike after the incident on Rigel VII. ::::The Colt in the novel might be a different Ensign Colt, but that seems unlikely, and would work as well as an explanation of Colt being only an ensign in 2257, which could as easily be considered an error, like Spock's rank (ensign) on the recap pages of Early Voyages. ::::There are many references to characters being unfamiliar with each other, but the familiar regulars - Pike, Spock, Number One, and Pitcairn (to some extent, even Garrison), seem to know each other very well, and to have developed very strong emotional bonds. Fortunately, I think that all of the references to unfamiliarity can be creatively interpreted to allow for this apparent familiarity. I'll focus on several of the most problematic passages. ::::First, Pike's musings about anti-vulcan prejudice and his knowledge of his officers: :::::Three months into his five-year mission with the crew, the captain was still learning their little personality traits. And quirks. And likes and dislikes and how they got along with one another. Which members of which department worked well together and which were like oil and water. In that regard, he’d expected to have some problems with Spock. There were a lot of people who still held a grudge against the Vulcans for the way they’d treated humanity in those early, post–First Contact years. Holding back key technologies, refusing Earthers an equal voice among the quadrant’s space-faring races. Most of that seemed to be in the past now, but occasionally, a bit of that xenophobia still popped up. Pike had prepared himself to have to deal with some of that among his crew; he’d suspected he might have a problem with Pitcairn in that regard. Glenn was old-line Starfleet, senior member of the crew, and the longest-serving non-flag officer in the fleet. But the chief and Spock got along like gangbusters. ::::In context, this section seems to be focused on Pike's unfamiliarity with Pitcairn, and on his expectation of the engineer's reaction to Spock. But it might also be interpreted as a mental tangent. The first three sentences would refer to Ben Tuval and the other new crewmembers whom Pike is getting to know, and the remainder would represent a further tangent (not implausible given Pike's general introspection), part mental flashback and part current concern about reactions to Spock, returning to the present at the end. ::::Alternatively, Pitcairn and Spock may have had little to do with each other during Pike's first five-year mission (Pike and Pitcairn might even have barely interacted before Pitcairn became chief engineer), but come to know and like each other in the mission's first three months. (This is supported by Pitcairn's comment 'How long have we known each other, three months? We get along okay, right?' to Spock, which might also be interpreted as a sarcastic comment to someone whom he's known for years - i.e. that they're not like new shipmates who've only known each other for three months. ::::Next, Boyce's reflection on Pike's knowledge of him: :::::Boyce looked at him and realized that somehow, Pike had figured out there was something going on here. More than met the eye. The captain knew him better than he’d thought, Boyce supposed. :::::Three months of working together would do that. ::::I think that this can also (generously) be interpreted as sarcastic, like one reading of Pitcairn's comment to Spock. Or he and Pike may simply have been at odds for some time, for whatever reason. I think the first explanation is more likely (and requires less assumption). ::::Next, Spock's thoughts on plastic paper: :::::Odd. In the three months he had been aboard Enterprise, he could not recall seeing a single sheet of flimsy—recycled plastiform—before. And now it seemed to be everywhere. ::::Fortunately, Spock is sometimes excessively literal. If he took leave or a short-term assignment while the Enterprise was refitted, he might regard himself as having been aboard the Enterprise for only three months. (I vaguely remember a canonical example of this, perhaps following "The Motion Picture", but I'm not sure that recollection is correct.) ::::Finally, Pike's misgivings about the name 'Number One': :::::Pike watched her go and shook his head. Number One. The words still felt wrong coming out of his mouth. A captain and his first officer were supposed to be joined at the hip, to have a symbiotic, almost telepathic relationship. Three months into their five-year mission, and he still didn’t know her given name. She was from one of the Illyrian colonies. The first day they’d met, she’d told Pike her real name was something pretty close to unpronounceable, and she’d preferred “Number One.” Insisted on it, in fact. Pike agreed. What choice did he have? He tried to tell himself it wasn’t that important, that it was just a name. Number One she wanted to be, Number One she was. ::::This, like the others, could be creatively read to support a placement in 2257 which reflects the familiarity and attachment the senior officers seem to have with and to each other. Pike's expression of frustration may be abbreviated. If 'three months into their five-year mission' means 'three months into their second five-year mission', his feelings would be all the more justified. ::::That Pike didn't know here given name here, but began to address her as 'Eure--' in "Flesh of My Flesh" could be reconciled with this by presuming that he knew the beginning of her name in that story, and was fishing for the rest. He would still not know her full first name six years later. ::::The passage above states that she told him her name was 'something pretty close to unpronounceable' 'the first day they’d met'. We know, from "Shadows of the Past", that Pike and Number One met aboard the Enterprise in approximately 2248, so the scene in 2251 would take place three years after Number One had first withheld her name. ::::Pike's and Number One's relationship - specifically Number One's comfort in command - is one of the reasons I think the novel should be placed after "The Cage". In "Flesh of My Flesh", which takes place shortly before that episode, Number One is reticent to fully assume command in Pike's absence (she eventually requires a gentle admonition from Boyce). Here, like in "The Cage", she is confident in command. ::::Altogether, I think the characterizations favor the novel's placement in 2257; I feel the same about Colt's presence and Garrison's rank; the known personnel assignments and relationships established in other licensed material seem to support a later placement, too. The only impediments I see are a number of references, some of which are given above, which (fortunately) can be creatively interpreted to allow them to make sense in the context of a second five-year mission nearly as well as a first (even if the logic involved is sometimes convoluted). --Columbia clipper 21:14, October 3, 2010 (UTC) :Just a couple of notes (I'm not a fan of David Stern and thus haven't read the material) :Colt also has an anomalous appearance in "To Walk the Night" where she is a rank-and-file yeoman (not yet the captain's yeoman), already aboard immediately prior to Rigel VII. Additionally "To Walk..." should probably take place prior to most EV/Cage era material (Pike has a moustache). :Enlisted folk (CPOs and others) do have a history of gaining officer's rank either by applying additional educational training or by completing duty responsibilities, even though a majority of officers are trained as such in a class enviroment at academies. -- Captain MKB 22:57, October 3, 2010 (UTC) ::My impression of "To Walk the Night" was that it took place after Early Voyages. Partly, that impression was because of Pike's mustache, but also because Colt and Tyler seemed to be spending a lot of time together (I assumed they were still dating). I thought that the ship was making a different, later, visit to the Rigel system. ::I don't remember Colt being identified as merely a rank-and-file yeoman, just as 'Yeoman', like she was in "The Cage". Do you remember when that was mentioned? --Columbia clipper 23:38, October 3, 2010 (UTC) :The description of the position from the original series seemed to be that only one person at a time held the position as the 'captain's yeoman' (i.e. the line "the captain's own yeoman") .. Colt didn't attain that position until the previous captain's yeoman died (cusack) and the "To Walk the Night" story took place previous to a course being set to Rigel VII. -- Captain MKB 00:16, October 4, 2010 (UTC) ::In "To Walk the Night", the only reference to Rigel I've been able to find is Jose Tyler's 'Besides, we're not going to arrive at Rigel for another couple of days--and even when we do, it's going to be a nice, leisurely survey.' He doesn't specify which planet (or which Rigel) he means; I took his statement to refer to a different Rigel. ::Also, the mission to Rigel VII we see in "Our Dearest Blood" isn't a survey mission. Pike and the Enterprise are present to officiate the planet's admission to the Federation. ::Regarding Colt's title, I can't find any reference to 'the captain's own yeoman'. The closest I've been able to find on TOS is Pike's description of his slain yeoman (Cusack) as 'my only yeoman' in "The Cage". There is also some direct discussion of the position of 'Captain's yeoman', but both officers we see in that position are consistently referred to simply as 'Yeoman' (Cusack in Early Voyages, and Colt in "The Cage", Early Voyages, "Captain's Log: Pike", and a number of novels). So far as I can tell, there isn't any contradiction if "To Walk the Night" takes place at some point after Early Voyages, which the story itself seems to allow. --Columbia clipper 00:49, October 4, 2010 (UTC) I know it's nice to pretend everything fits into one neat continuity, but let’s be realistic, it doesn't. And I think it is disrespectful to the creator’s original intent to reinterpret obvious references to make everything fit. So I think "To Walk the Night" takes place before "The Cage", and based on the arguments and quotes given here so does this novel. --8of5 01:08, October 4, 2010 (UTC) :The intent of "To Walk" was to depict a pre-Cage adventure - hence the foreshadowing reference to Rigel and foreshadowing in Pike/Boyce conversation. :The line from The Cage was "my own yeoman, two others dead" although the interpretation "my only yeoman" also creates the same impression = The captain only has one yeoman. :Hence any other yeomen beside the captain's yeoman are not the captain's yeoman. Hence, any additional yeomen on Enterprise prior to the captain's yeoman's death are not the captain's yeoman -- since Colt did not die on Rigel, she could not have been the captain's yeoman before Rigel. It would fit canon to have her as a yeoman already aboard who is bumped up to fill the captain's yeoman role, but this contradicts the whole "coming aboard after Rigel" scenario from EV. -- Captain MKB 10:39, October 4, 2010 (UTC) ::I understand that "To Walk the Night" was meant to take place in 2254 (though I misinterpreted the story's intended placement when I originally read it); your first comment cleared that up for me (thanks). But I don't think it necessarily needs to be placed there. Despite the author's attempts to foreshadow the pre-"The Cage" mission to Rigel VII, the story works at least as well after that mission (as my misunderstanding of its intended placement suggests). ::Further, I think a case can be made that the story should take place after Rigel VII (presumably some time after), rather than before. Essentially, this is a question of compatibility with other stories. In addition to the problems with Early Voyages, there exists one with Rigel. In "To Walk the Night", Spock states that 'No one has ever been to Rigel before'. So long as the Enterprise is visiting the true Rigel (Beta Orionis), this is fine, but if the mission is to Beta Rigel, his statement is false, as established in "Broken Bow" and "These Are the Voyages" (without a second Rigel, the statement is simply canonically incorrect). ::A number of sources indicate that Rigel VII's system has been visisted by Starfleet. "Worlds" and "Worlds of the Federation" establish Rigel II and Rigel IV-VIII as planets of the same system, a perspective which is also assumed by "Catalyst of Sorrows" (for VI and V, at least), which in turn establishes that the Federation annexed a human colony in the system (also referred to in "Worlds") in 2249. ("These Are the Voyages" canonically established a 'Rigel Colony' in 2161; it's not clear that that colony was human, but all other references to '____ Colony' in Enterprise referenced Earth colonies.) Star Charts also indicates that the 'United Rigel Colonies', consisting of Rigel II, IV, V, VI, and X, joined the Federation in 2202 (which is consistent with the isolationism of Rigel VII shown in "Our Dearest Blood", and the later date of its admission shown there). ::Regarding Colt, Pike's reference to his yeoman in "The Cage" indicates that Colt was not his yeoman (or among his several yeomen) at the time of the incident on Rigel VII - as you note. (The consensus seems to be that the line is 'My only yeoman'.) Number One's explanation of Colt to Pike suggests the same thing. In "To Walk the Night", Colt is addressed as 'Yeoman'. As you say, we might interpret this as meaning that she is a yeoman, but assigned to a department or person other than the captain (like 'navigator's yeoman', 'ship-store yeoman', etc. on early 20th Century U.S. warships, which also carried a 'captain's yeoman'; I would guess that she's assigned to sciences if this is the case). But she might also be the captain's yeoman, since all of them we've seen have also been referred to simply as 'yeoman'. --Columbia clipper 16:44, October 5, 2010 (UTC) "I understand that "To Walk the Night" was meant to take place in 2254" I think that is the key, we all read those references and know what they are meant to indicate, I think it would be wrong to ignore the signifiers to try and reconcile one story by one publisher in its own island of continuity with another story from and other publishers on another island. Yes it's nice when it all works out neatly, but we shouldn't willingly ignore the creator's intent to force that to happen. --8of5 18:48, October 5, 2010 (UTC) ::The final concrete confirmation for "To Walk the Night" - Spock and Tyler discuss how they've never been to Rigel before. -- Captain MKB 18:57, October 5, 2010 (UTC) Placement redux I've recently been reading through the novel for a second time and I'm starting to come around to 's suggestion that it takes place at the beginning of a second five-year mission in 2256/57. Of course the information could be interpreted either way, but in the novel Pike states that he has known Pitcairn for 15 years. In an earlier passage, it was stated that Pike met Pitcairn while serving aboard the Olympus following his graduation from the Academy, which Burning Dreams (an acknowledged source for this novel) gives as 2241. Therefore: 2241+15='2256' On the other hand, "evidence" pertaining to Dr. Boyce could suggest an even later placement. In this novel, his age is given as 61. Now early production information for Boyce's age as 51 for "The Cage", suggesting that this story could occur in 2264. This placement could be backed up as around 20 years prior to the story, Boyce worked on Argelius with Dr. Korby and his assistant Chapel. Its not made clear, but if Chapel is intended to be Christine Chapel, then this story would need to occur in the 2260s or later. In my opinion, I'd ignore the Boyce placement issues as no specific birth date has been given and the Chapel in the story could have easily have been Christine's father. Unless of course, she is Morgan Primus. :P I'd definitely consider moving this story to the 56/57 mark and support many of Columbia's earlier thoughts on the placement. :) --The Doctor 12:45, November 16, 2010 (UTC) :I'm not so sure the is cause to alter the intentions present -- this might just mean that this author disagrees with the Burning Dreams date of the Academy graduation. There seems to be (from this discussion) data stacked towards indicating this is from the beginning of the voyage before the visits to Rigel, Talos and Vega. Should we really throw these major events out on the basis of faulty arithmetic in one minor reference? Stern's graduation date for Pike isn't steadfastly held to precisely match Burning Dreams's graduation date for Pike, you know. -- Captain MKB 15:02, November 16, 2010 (UTC) ::Ah, I've really missed this place. It makes no difference to me either way, I was just throwing something in either way. This novel doesn't reference Rigel, Talos or Vega correct, but does the lack of references indicate that they haven't already occured. One little tidbit about Colt is that the reference to her as an ensign is definitely a mistake as later in the book she is repeatedly referred to as Yeoman. Maybe more people need to read this book and you can get a definitive answer, because the two people who've read the book and have commented so far, seem to agree that a later placement than 2251 would be preferred. I wish you well. :) --The Doctor 15:26, November 16, 2010 (UTC) :I'm not trying to start a fight and this isn't personal. Sorry if I offended you, Doc, and sorry if I misunderstood the situation -- I'd really rather discuss more details instead of dealing with you being upset with me. I'm curious about this book and wanted to explore it in more detail through a discussion. Please don't leave the wiki every time I try to discuss something with you. :I also hope I am not offending you to point out that 'yeoman' is a title and not a rank and it is possible for an ensign to be a yeoman also. Nobody was very nice to me or tried to sugarcoat this for me when this information about yeomans was brought to my attention either. -- Captain MKB 15:32, November 16, 2010 (UTC) ::Blimey, talk about paranoia. I'm really not upset with you and had no intention to fight with everyone. I was just laying down some facts that could prove helpful with deciding on the final placement of the novel, that is all. And as for leaving the wiki everytime we have a discussion: I resent that accusation. ::When I was a contributor here we had some very constructive discussions from everything to rank insignia to chronological placements and I consider that on the whole, we worked well together, bar the odd misunderstanding. The final deciding factor in my leaving was to do with the immovability of long standing contributors and had little or nothing to do with you. That and the in-fighting that was occuring between you and 8of5 at that exact time. ::And for the yeoman information. Thank you very much, however, that point was brought up in relation to an earlier question about Colt's rank/position being a mistake earlier on. --The Doctor 15:40, November 16, 2010 (UTC) :::Well, first off, if my whole argument was in error, then I do not mind being corrected with correct information. I apologize if I ever have contributed to your exasperation and I don't mean to be paranoid but you do say in one sentence it I am not the problem then in another sentence that I am part of the problem, so maybe paranoid is too strong a term to use against me -- maybe 'confused'. :::Anyway, my whole comment is that we went around this for a while on the understanding that the story took place at the beginning of the mission and that was the intention even though certain details didn't match that. I guess I'm curious about what indicated the book took place at the beginning of the mission together, and maybe I should just read it. -- Captain MKB 16:01, November 16, 2010 (UTC) ::::I'm sorry if I confused you with my ramblings. Initially I wasn't upset about anything, then your following comments annoyed me. So then I was upset. :) Anyway, enough of this nonsense I say, and back to business. After (nearly) finishing the novel I truly believe that the placement could be ambiguous with hints to 2251 or 2256. The author notes that he views this as a prequel to the 2009 film and only used "The Cage", Burning Dreams and Vulcan's Glory as source material. With this in mind, I think the best idea with this novel is to classify it in the same category as the Crucible novels. --The Doctor 16:10, November 16, 2010 (UTC) Alternate Reality I'm about 3/4 the way through the novel, and I'm not familiar with all the dating evidence discussed above. But, as The Doctor said above, the Author's Note at the back of the book is pretty clear that it takes place in the alternate reality (Nero, 2233): Stern says "The Children of Kings is a prequel to that 2009 film; the Enterprise as it might have been under Captain Christopher Pike." He goes on to say he intended Pike as played by Bruce Greenwood. The rest of his note is all in favour of the new movie setting, and for throwing out the original timeline. Although Stern lists "The Cage", Vulcan's Glory (novel), and Burning Dreams as sources, he specifically says "for some of the characters/characterizations", so that's likely only personalities. So I strong believe this is set in the Neroverse, and so most of the dating evidence goes out the window. Can we confirm this? — BadCatMan (talk) 09:01, August 25, 2013 (UTC) Chronology problem :In Cadet Kirk (in our chronology placed after this book), Spock is still an ensign -- there are a ton of other problems with the chronology from above that have been discussed to death but none addressed apparently. -- Captain MKB 14:06, January 17, 2016 (UTC)